The End of Year Interview: Rabin Bhujun

On the state of journalism in Mauritius & more

Rabin Bhujun is an award-winning journalist who has garnered international recognition for his work. He was the editor-in-chief of one of the country’s leading papers for seven years before starting his own digital news outlet in 2013. By 2020 he’d moved on from the outlet and founded Relate Inc, a media consultancy and media training company.

AS: It is perhaps unconventional to start an interview with such lengthy context, but here we go. In 2010, I was a trainee journalist who was told that the biggest news organisations in the country were in financial difficulty. They have survived – albeit somewhat shakily, perhaps – but the quality of journalism they now produce is below par. During the pandemic there were articles and radio shows that were, quite frankly, abysmal in content: interviews with disgraced doctors, ‘debates’ on vaccination that gave a strong platform to anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists – and there are still some conspiracy theories masking as articles published today in once-prestigious papers.

RB: It is funny that you mention that. One of our leading newspapers was fact-checked by University of Mauritius students on a piece that precisely let one of those “disgraced doctors” peddle unsubstantiated claims on the effect of Covid-19 vaccines on children. The fact-checked piece eventually won the “Fact-Check of the Year by a Student Journalist Award” at the African Fact-Checking Awards.

The newspaper in question welcomed the international accolade with a full page article dressing-down the young students and putting into question their methodology and ethics, without acknowledging, at any point, that the article they had published contained many instances of sloppy – if not outright questionable – journalism.

Journalists are supposed to be seekers. It appears that in this case, the newspaper found out that its journalists are infallible!

AS: Post-pandemic, there’s a clear lack of journalistic rigour in mainstream coverage: sensationalism has taken precedence over accurate, thorough reporting. The hysteria – there seems to be no other word – surrounding Bruneau Laurette’s incarceration is a case in point. I am yet to see a single piece that has thoroughly examined the rise and fall of the activist-turned-politician; there has been no mention, for instance, about his past working for the MSM in 2019 as an agent and/or bodyguard, and his previous work as an agent for the Reform Party, though his history with both parties seems important given his political career and the different pronouncements he has made. Instead, we are given articles upon articles that seek, in no unclear terms, to portray his arrest as the work of the party in power. Some journalists have made declarations to the police about a supposed ‘hit list’ (a list abetted by the police, at that) which seems risible upon the first read. These journalists have not given any factual proof of why a police statement was necessary or of the actual threats they have faced.

There are people who seem to think that, even with no evidence of an actual threat, these journalists were right to go to the police since they wanted a ‘shield’ in case they were truly attacked in some way, which speaks a lot about the atmosphere at the moment. There is the fear that the government seeks to restrict freedom of speech. This fear is not entirely unfounded, given the ICTA proposal in 2021; existing ICTA laws that have arrested citizens for sharing memes in the past; the fact that, under current Mauritian law, a journalist can be charged with sedition or libel here even if what they report is true and the subject of their reporting is dead; that a journalist could be imprisoned if someone in power took offence at a reported fact, stating that an article harms their honour or is “exciting contempt” against the government; the fact that consecutive governments have demurred from reforming colonial-era media laws, have consistently impeded setting up independent television broadcasters and haven’t yet drafted a Freedom of Information Act.

What are your thoughts about the state of the press in Mauritius at the moment?

RB: I tend to differentiate between the press and journalism. In 2023, the Mauritian press will be a 250-year-old institution; the oldest press of the southern hemisphere. “Press” is a generic term though, since the press is made of individual companies which grow, mature and eventually die or fade away. That is the life cycle of any company in any industry.

The Covid-19 advertising crunch, the dominance of Facebook and Google as advertising platforms as well as the inherent business model weaknesses of media companies will certainly lead to some major upheavals in our media landscape. Many – if not all – media houses are already in dire financial straits, some may disappear; very few will thrive and/or remain in existence by the end of this decade. Glorious past histories do not insulate any of our older or larger media houses from the current crisis. For example, today a centennial media house is surviving on a month-to-month basis as it struggles to find a sustainable business model. The outlook is bleak, but this is not what worries me the most.

I am most concerned with the state of journalism. Social media, mainly Facebook, is the dominant distribution platform of news content in Mauritius – and elsewhere. 80% of the consumption of mainstream news in Mauritius originates from the Facebook pages of our major news organisations. The main news outlets have 850 000+ followers each, in a country of 1.3 million people. The New York Times, which hails from a country with a population of 330 million has “only” 19 million followers!

There is now a symbiotic – I’m tempted to say parasitic – relationship between journalism and social media in Mauritius. That is a matter of grave concern in my opinion, as we see a major new “news” genre thrive: Unedited and unfiltered live Facebook streams during which everything and anything can be said and relayed without any sort of journalistic checks and balances.

On social media, there are few and clearly identifiable metrics of success: Likes, Shares, Comments and Views. Only these matter. What is preoccupying with those metrics is that they inherently reward short, polarised and superficial “news” instead of deeper and meaningful journalism. Go check how in-depth and research-heavy articles fare on those metrics compared to shorter, sensationalist write-ups with titles engineered to draw attention and stir emotions…

Higher engagement metrics drive higher online advertising revenue. Media houses are deeply conscious of that new reality and are building their models around it. They aim to produce “news” content that reaches the widest audience, leveraging on clicks and measurable online attention span, so as to monetise their content in the digital realm. In so doing, they are now consistently promoting a brand of shallow, fast-paced and – dare I say – insipid journalism.

The sacrosanct journalistic duty of care based on verification and contextualisation is becoming a secondary concern. The questions used to be Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. The Why and the How are now fading away, as is quality journalism. The superficial focus is now principally on the Who, What, Where and When, which often leaves the audience ill-informed – and in certain cases dangerously misinformed.

Social media supremacy and the obsession with its metrics are also influencing the way journalists are conducting themselves. I do not advocate for leading journalists and opinion leaders to remain in their ivory towers and bubbles. However, to do their jobs properly, they do need to take two steps back from the mob mentality that is particularly prevalent on social media. But I now feel that many of our leading journalists see no difference between their job and that of an influencer. Journalists inform and educate; an influencer is nothing but a glorified crowd-pleaser.

Journalists and opinions leaders are now engaging in a sort of popularity contest by adapting their attitudes and postures to the predominant trends on social media. Many now believe in and operate under the false premise that when a journalist’s work is massively commented upon and liked on social media, it is intrinsically of value. When, in fact, in many instances journalists need to be the voice of reason and not churn out news and opinions that barely confirm the biases of their vocal audience on social media.

AS: Is there really a threat to our democracy and freedom of speech?

RB: I’m going to be non-committal and say yes and no.

I believe your question encompasses freedom of speech, which is protected in our Constitution, and freedom of the press – which is not. The latter is, however, a subset of the former. Level-headed journalists would argue that tensions between government and the press is a common and welcome feature in any true democracy. A country where journalists and government are content with each other is probably not a very high-functioning democracy; maybe not one at all! So, I have never been worried by tensions between these two and still am not today.

That being said, freedom of the press is being insidiously threatened from both inside and outside. From the inside, the temptation to not bite the hand that feeds is increasingly worrisome. Media houses, as discussed earlier, are reeling under financial constraints and heavily value the few large players that still spend millions on advertising each year. If one carefully reviews the state of business and economic journalism in Mauritius, one would come to the conclusion that there is very little analytical and critical journalism on the strategies – or even the misdeeds – of the major conglomerates of Mauritius. I can see but one explanation to this very tame version of business journalism in the country: A conscious effort to not ruffle feathers and potentially lose precious advertisement revenue from major private sector players.

Faced with government advertising boycotts or threats of boycott, certain media houses have also succumbed to the temptation of biting the hands that stopped feeding, in the hope of coercing their opponent(s) into re-entering previous advertising contracts and arrangements, or to facilitate their exit from power, while wishing that the next government will be more sympathetic to those who somehow contributed to their election. In so doing, fair and balanced journalism is being replaced by an agenda-driven version of the practice, which further stifles quality journalism and presents audiences with a very binary or polarised take on what is happening in the country.

Coming back to freedom of expression at large, I would say that there is a political will to either dismiss or silence those who are perceived as being too critical of the government. There have been amendments to laws that have further criminalised what can be said on social media, for example. Our government was also bold enough to propose new and tougher control measures relating to social media; following a generalised public uproar, the project was scrapped altogether.

To be fair, if you scan through the different Facebook groups and pages as well as individual profiles, you’ll find that Mauritians are generally free to engage in the fiercest criticism against public authorities and government officials. After a ban on public gatherings due to the Covid-19 situation, public rallies and protests are once again being regularly organised. I’m in fact quite surprised by the fact that recent public gatherings and protests have not attracted more Mauritians. Could it be that Mauritians are predominantly keyboard warriors, or are they afraid to be seen in public during protests? Or maybe there is a yet another explanation: that social media in Mauritius does not provide a true and fair depiction of what Mauritians feel in general.

I cannot answer this question without stressing the crucial role that the judiciary as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions, a constitutional post holder, have played in protecting freedom of speech in Mauritius. Though the ICTA Act has been toughened, our judiciary has been very light-handed in applying the new legal framework, especially when complainants are powerful public figures. Four years later, the ICTA amendments have led to very few convictions.

Similarly, our judiciary has been historically skewed towards protecting freedom of the press. Since I first started practising journalism over 25 years ago, the Supreme Court has only sent one journalist to jail after convicting him under the colonial-era charge of “scandalising the court” – and the conviction was eventually quashed by the Privy Council. The previous conviction took place just after Independence, in the early 1970s, when a journalist had been fined for the offence of “sedition”. As we stand, the director of public prosecutions rarely recommends prosecution against journalists or citizens in matters relating to freedom of speech. And even when that happens, our courts are very inclined to see expression as a rule to be upheld.

AS: Are you concerned about the state of the country at the moment?

RB: Yes I am, and my concern is deep-rooted into the political and electoral realities of Mauritius. The Constitution of Mauritius and its electoral system are true masterpieces that were perfect for the country when it was achieving independence in the late 60s and still reeling from communal riots. Both our Constitution and electoral laws favoured wide political consensus, and somehow forced different ethnic groups to work together by ensuring that the country would be run by stable governments with proper ethnic and religious representation. This was most notably guaranteed by the careful gerrymandering of the 20 constituencies of the country, which ensured that candidates from the so-called ‘majority ethnicity’ in Mauritius would obtain a majority of seats in Parliament while other communities would still gain adequate representation.

Mauritius needed that system then, but both our Constitution and its entrenched electoral system are now passé. The aspirations of voters have changed, as has the sociocultural profile of the electorate, but the electoral system has remained exactly the same. The current system favours stability by creating a clear majority in Parliament. Thus, a coalition can rule for five years even if it obtains votes predominantly in only half of the constituencies. This is how the current government has been ruling comfortably – and of course legally – with just 37% of nation-wide votes obtained during the national assembly elections of 2019.

Government has faced fierce and widespread criticism on the way it handled the Wakashio tragedy; public spending and procurement during and after the Covid crisis, and matters of governance as well as nepotism. But once again, it appears that the Prime minister aims to leverage on and appeal to the same vote bank that brought him to power in 2019. This is most preoccupying, since this electoral strategy will exacerbate an overlapping rural/urban and ethnic majority/minority divide in the country. Unfortunately, this strategy is sound – albeit dangerous – since the main historical opposition parties are still struggling to join forces and apportion posts in order to offer a credible political alternative to Mauritian voters. In these circumstances, the ruling party may be tempted to secure a win at the next general election by predominantly catering to the needs of its traditional electorate, thus alienating a large cross-section of voters.

In the face of a deliquescent opposition, new and populist opposition parties have emerged. They do not have massive followings but they do, however, peddle dangerous unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and nihilist rhetoric. Voters who feel disenfranchised from the traditional political parties and institutions buy into their simplistic rhetoric: Do away with institutions, political parties and large chunks of the Constitution. It is easier said than done…and most importantly, the current electoral system affords such populist movements close to a zero chance of electing a single candidate, thus consolidating their bombastic discourse that the whole system needs to come crashing down.

Recent opinion polls [such as Afrobarometer July 2022] have showed that 58% of Mauritians do not trust opposition parties, while 56% distrust the ruling party. One could argue that there are now four categories of Mauritians and voters. Firstly, those who feel that their needs are catered for by the government; secondly, those who can afford to be uneasy since they are financially and socially insulated in their bubbles; thirdly, those who have the means or opportunity to leave the country and end up doing so; and finally all the others, left in a state of rage and despair and who end up following false messiahs. The frustration and suffering of this fourth category of Mauritians should not be overlooked. Since it is out of despair and frustration that some end up resorting to violence.

AS: And these are obviously crucial concerns going into 2023, the year before the next general elections. As we prepare to enter the new year, are there any particular events or shifts in the politico-social climate that you’ll be watching closely?

National assembly elections are due end 2024, but as it is always the case in Mauritius, the campaign starts two years before the actual elections. Restoring purchasing power will be a key theme during the coming campaign, since Mauritius is being hit by an inflationary surge that we have not witnessed since the early 90s. As matters stand, government, public institutions as well as prominent state-owned companies are mostly running on deficits. The state is in no position to dole out any sort of generalised largesse. Despite that hard fact, I’m afraid that as from start of 2023, both the government and the opposition will incessantly try to outdo each other in a competition to put the most money back into the pocket of voters.

Recently, a prominent opposition figure announced that he would provide senior citizens with free plane tickets to Rodrigues, which is an hour and a half away from Mauritius, if he is elected back to the post of prime minister. He backed off, following severe criticism and sarcastic remarks. But his announcement is symptomatic, since it is in fact an indication of the mainstream political class’ mindset: They all believe that they can bribe their way to victory with such proposals.

What is most worrying is that a sizeable part of the electorate actually expects political parties to make such promises. In 2023 and 2024, that demand will most probably be met with some bombastic and financially untenable announcements. In doing so, political parties are running towards an insoluble problem. They may, on one hand, make promises that they are in no position to fulfil if they get elected. On the other hand, they may actually do what they promised and further jeopardise the financial stability of government, public institutions and state-owned enterprises.